This article originally appeared in our Elevenses newsletter.
The Labour Party has called for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” in the Israel-Hamas conflict in a major shift in the party’s stance on the war, 136 days since the fighting first broke out. The Opposition party has tabled an amendment to the SNP’s ceasefire in Gaza motion to be voted on in the House of Commons on Wednesday (21/2). It signifies a notable shift in Sir Keir Starmer’s position on the matter, having stopped short of using the word “immediate” in the past.
The Labour leader’s stance on the conflict has long caused unease among some in his party, with dozens of Labour MPs breaking ranks over an earlier SNP motion three months ago. Eight members of his shadow cabinet, including the well-regarded Jess Phillips, quit the frontbench to vote for the amendment to the king’s speech. Most of them, you would think, will now be forced to side with the party that made them pick between their beliefs and their jobs just a few months before.
It raises questions over why Sir Keir has decided that now is the right time to change his tune. The optimist in me wants to think that it is the tens of thousands of lives that have been lost, the desperate humanitarian situation or concern for the millions of people trapped in Gaza’s last remaining sanctuary of Rafah, where a ground assault will commence if Israeli hostages are not freed by Ramadan. But I fear that the move amounts to little more than politicking by Starmer, who sees gains in Scotland and in constituencies with a large number of Muslim voters as being reason enough to do an about-turn on the party’s stance.
Yet, with such a hefty lead in the polls, you might think Starmer could have shown a little more conviction and courage in his decision-making, rather than sticking his finger in the air and waiting for the wind to change. The saga reminds me of a quote by Tony Benn, who likens politicians such as Starmer and – at the other end of the spectrum, I’d say – his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn to signposts and weathercocks, with the latter waiting to see what the polls and focus groups say before forming an opinion and the former boldly stating from the start that ‘this is the way we should go’ and sticking to it.
“I’ve no time for Weathercocks,” Benn said. “I’m a Signpost man. And in fairness, although I disagreed with everything she did, Mrs Thatcher was a Signpost. She said what she meant. Meant what she said. Did what she said she’d do if you voted for her. So everybody who voted for her shared responsibility for what happened. And I think that we do need a few more Signposts and fewer Weathercocks.”
I also rather enjoyed Steve Coogan’s take on it in a recent episode of the Alan Partridge audiobook From The Oasthouse. As he humorously points out, “the problem with nailing your colours to the mast is that unless you’ve got a claw hammer, it’s bloody hard to get them out afterwards. [Starmer] might not be a principled politician, but my goodness he’s clever”.
Sign up to Elevenses for free here: www.thelondoneconomic.com/newsletter